Man To Pay $34,000 Damages Over Negative TrustPilot Review (bbc.com) 86
A man who left a negative review of a legal firm on the TrustPilot website has been ordered to pay $34,000 in libel damages. The BBC reports: Philip James Waymouth engaged London law firm Summerfield Browne online to provide advice but was unsatisfied with the service he received. He then left a review accusing the firm of being "another scam solicitor," according to court documents. The firm took legal action, stating that this was untrue and defamatory. The number of business enquiries it received had dropped since the publication of the review, Summerfield Browne said.
Mr Waymouth had not engaged with Summerfield Browne's complaints procedure before leaving the review, the High Court in London heard. He did not attend the online hearing or send a legal representative. He previously said he had offered to remove the review in exchange for a refund of the 200-pound fee (plus VAT) he had paid but claimed the firm had not responded. In the review, Mr Waymouth alleged: "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case. "But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me." Finding for the firm, judge Master David Cook said it was "beyond any dispute" the words in the review "had a clear tendency to put people off dealing with the claimant firm." And Mr Waymouth had "never fully articulated" why he was unhappy with Summerfield Browne's work.
Mr Waymouth had not engaged with Summerfield Browne's complaints procedure before leaving the review, the High Court in London heard. He did not attend the online hearing or send a legal representative. He previously said he had offered to remove the review in exchange for a refund of the 200-pound fee (plus VAT) he had paid but claimed the firm had not responded. In the review, Mr Waymouth alleged: "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case. "But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me." Finding for the firm, judge Master David Cook said it was "beyond any dispute" the words in the review "had a clear tendency to put people off dealing with the claimant firm." And Mr Waymouth had "never fully articulated" why he was unhappy with Summerfield Browne's work.
Re: Honesty and integrity are so 2019... (Score:3, Insightful)
Boo hoo.
Look, I completely disagree with this ruling, but from what little I know about libel in Britain, it seems pretty consistent with how they view things. This would never happen in America as we have a much more narrow definition.
Your whining is completely unrelated to the story.
Re: Honesty and integrity are so 2019... (Score:5, Insightful)
He lost the case because he didn't bother to defend himself!
This is not really news-- it's just another case of "guy acts stupid and his stupidity comes back and bites him."
...This would never happen in America as we have a much more narrow definition.
No, even in America when you don't show up to defend yourself, you're likely to find the judgement is against you.
Re: Honesty and integrity are so 2019... (Score:2)
Guilty until proven innocent ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, he loses and lawyers win. Either he represents himself in a high-stakes game he doesn't know how to play, or he spends a lot of money on a *different* lawyer to defend himself from the first one. Situation is fucked.
UK libel law is a raging dumpster fire. My favourite part of it is that not only is the burden of proof placed on the accused:
Basically, under UK law, you are guilty of libel until you prove yourself innocent. Better yet, people not resident
Re: (Score:3)
Given the raging dumpster fire that is consequence-free discourse in US media, I'm not so sure that the standard in the US is actually better. Obviously, there are real issues with the UK approach, but it's kind of hard to ignore the massive real-world impact of online lies in the US; just look at 2020 (and really even many decades before that; successful disinformation campaigns have been pretty common).
Not saying we should emulate the UK, but nevertheless, the lack of consequences for spreading lies in th
Re:Guilty until proven innocent ... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Brit I'm not going to defend UK libel law, it's actually worse than you think by the way (no seriously go read about it it's deeply fucked in a rich and interesting variety of ways), but I'm going to pick on this because I think it lacks nuance:
Basically, under UK law, you are guilty of libel until you prove yourself innocent.
The problem in being purely the other way round is the libelled person has to prove themselves innocent of whatever the libellous claim is. Could you prove you aren't a pedo?
Re: (Score:2)
The Polanski/Vanity Fair case is a bad example for you. Vanity Fair has a presence in the UK, and sold it's articles there, which is why Polanski was able to rationally argue that his reputation had been attacked there...even though he's a dick that most of us think should be in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Honesty and integrity are so 2019... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, even in America when you don't show up to defend yourself, you're likely to find the judgement is against you.
This is, unfortunately, the outcome for most US court cases... Citizens pay the fine because they cannot or will not spare the time expense necessary to contest an accusation in court.
Sadly, "...there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining, scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990)."
It's the same reason elections ar
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think plea bargains can be compared to not showing up.
Not showing up is not giving the slightest f about your own issues.
But people are usually coerced into plea bargains by threatening to up the charges to a ridiculous level. Then it's either you go to jail for a few months or you'll be charged for something that could give you a few years. (and pushed lawyer costs to something that you can't afford twice)
Re: (Score:2)
Not showing up is not giving the slightest f about your own issues.
Especially when it's an online trial that you don't even have to drive to...
Already in America (Score:2, Informative)
It is happening in America in front of our very eyes, as the makers of vote-counting machines are suing people for suggesting, they may be shoddy. And New York Pravda can barely hide their glee [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:3)
It is happening in America in front of our very eyes, as the makers of vote-counting machines are suing people for suggesting, they may be shoddy. And New York Pravda can barely hide their glee [nytimes.com].
You don't get to publicly claim a business is shoddy without presenting actual proof. Is the fact that this is libel new to you?
Re: (Score:2)
My point was, such things aren't "foreign" in America.
I stated no opinion on whether that's a good thing — as you imply, or bad — as is/was Slashdot's [slashdot.org] prevailing [slashdot.org] opinion [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out New York law on libel and slander allow you to mitigate damages - if you issue a retraction and disavow the false story, your damages will get reduced. It won't eliminate all the damages - that wouldn't be fair, but it mitigates a good chunk.
It's why NewsMax and ilk are rapidly recanting - it's the only
Re: (Score:2)
Speech has consequences. This has never been in doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently, RazorSharp was not aware, when he posted: "This would never happen in America".
Re: (Score:2)
I am well aware of the cases you refer to and they are not analogous to this one. Making up and disseminating elaborate conspiracies about a company that will destroy their business is clear defamation. It's not exaggeration, it's not hyperbole, it's not figurative.
America has a very narrow definition of slander/libel and the idiots who thought that political capital could be mined by defaming a couple voting machine companies stepped right in it. They made very specific claims that are having a clear negat
Re: (Score:2)
Times have changed, let's face the fact that we serfs need only kneel to whatever our masters desire. Not happy with a service you PAID for? Shut up and work a few extra hours for your masters.. Want to make a controversial post? Think again, the ban hammer awaits. Society is too soft, too easily offended, and quick to enable the "victim"
Society is also rather ignorant and delusional if the "victim" in this case, is a legal firm.
Re: (Score:1)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were on the firms side. The review was completely dishonest. They guy said that he was scammed, and that's it. He did not say why he felt scammed nor did he offer any relevant information in his review. According to the firm, he did not even discuss his displeasure with them before placing the review.
So yes, honesty is a thing of the past. The guy literally made a defamatory and dishonest review to hurt the business. This is why the judge ruled in favor of the firm.
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in the summary, he said they just re-arranged the wording of the documents he sent them. God I fucking hate law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that wasn't mentioned in the review. I think that's from the interview.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a review on the internet. Yes, it would be nice to get some additional detail to support his view but that doesn't alter whether or not his view was valid.
Although, now we've had this court case, I guess a different approach is needed.
"Acted just like the scam lawyers out there" perhaps, or maybe "I felt scammed by them".
Re: (Score:2)
first post to point out exactly what it was that triggered the problem.
the word 'scam'
the guy wrote "another scam solicitor" which makes it seem that these guys were running a scam
if he would have wrote, "I felt", or "i was treated like 3 world peasant" then they might not have a leg even to have started the action.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it was. The original Trust Pilot review read as follows (quoted from the judgment linked in the article [bailii.org]):
"A total waste of money another scam solicitor
Stacey mills left the company half way through my assessment and the replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was d
Re: (Score:2)
I glanced through it quicker then you it seems, I sometimes RTFA
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. From the article:
In the review, Mr Waymouth alleged: "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case.
"But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me."
LegalEagle (Score:2)
Re: LegalEagle (Score:3)
I am pretty sure that if this were in America, the judge would interpret the scam claim as clearly hyperbolic or figurative and he would not be found guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite possibly right. Defamation laws in the UK are far more favorable to the accuser than in the US, and are regularly used to suppress criticism.
In the US, a suit like this could possibly bring a SLAPP countersuit.
Re: LegalEagle (Score:3)
Most likely it would have gone the same exact way. A default judgement against the defendant. Most likely the judge would rule with the lowest side possible of what was being asked; hoping his ruling gets appealed or defendant comes in asking for a redo.
You actually have to defend yourself if you are served. If you ignore it, you aren't ignoring the firm, you are ignoring the court and the law. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. The defendant literally wrote to the judge to say he refused to participate. He wrote: "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending"
I mean that's shooting yourself in the bollocks with the judge right there, by calling into question their own abilities as well as that of the law firm.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure he can appeal or ask for a redo now. Well, he can ask, but generally speaking unless there is some genuine reason why he didn't attend the original hearing he probably won't get another opportunity.
"I made a mistake and should have attended" isn't a good excuse. He might convince a judge to allow it anyway, but only if he can show he had now prepared a proper defence and has some realistic chance of reducing the amount he owes.
Re: LegalEagle (Score:2)
In the US, it is really up to the Judge. In small claims cases, the judges are very lenient; thou you will see court fees stack up. Larger cases, I think there is a risk that the ruling moves the case out of their control or they don't have as much control on the proceeding and processes.
I literally had a small claims example happen in front of me last year where the guy went outside to talk on his phone after waiting 2 hrs for his turn. He didn't realize the officers calling his name all over the house.
H
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly urge people not to use commentary by a US lawyer on US cases to guide their understanding and approach to UK libel laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes a while, most people have not clue that laws are way different of laws exist in the USA.
We have roman civil law via the Justinian Code entering in the USA British law,
Napoleonic Code within the civil law, via the Louisiana purchase
and then there might be even more. It's the local execution of these laws that make it even much more interesting.
An actual legal advice from IANAL (Score:3)
If you get charges or a summons on you, pretty much the worst you can do is ignore it. The only time it makes sense is when you know that court has no jurisdiction, but even then, you should respond with that if they get a summons to you.
If you aren't in court to defend yourself, the judge uses his best judgement and has to go with what is presented... hoping his ruling gets appealed.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that it's very difficult to mount a defence without taking expensive legal advice, so if you can't afford it you are basically screwed.
Turning up is a good idea but without an understanding of the law it is really down to how sympathetic the judge is, and most are not very sympathetic at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is in England, where even if a statement is true, someone can sue for libel and win, unlike other countries where the truth is an absolute defence.
But even in Britain, truth is an affirmative defense against libel. That means, it's up to you to prove what you said is true.
Not showing up in court and expecting the judge will see it your way just doesn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Standard legal practice (Score:3)
Is to give a new small case to a junior who just responds with the facts reworded, some platitudes, no new information, and "it all depends on how a judge might view the case".
The problem is that Waymouth was probably not too intelligent. He probably just shot his mouth off. Whereas if he had clearly said why he thought he was ripped off then there would probably be no case to answer provided he was factual. But that requires intelligence.
And there's the rub. Half the population has below average intelligence. They say all sorts of stupid things. Traditionally that was in the pub or over the back fence, but now it is on social media. And ordinary people are being treated like publishers, and expected to know how to act intelligently. And that is not reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that "half the population has below average intelligence" you should be a little more precise with your language and use median instead of average....
Yes, but those half the people below median intelligence don't know what a median is (much less why it's different from an average), so they wouldn't understand you if you said that.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the median intelligence and the average intelligence are roughly the same here, since we're most probably dealing with something very close to a normal distribution. The assessment that "half the population has below average intelligence" is quite accurate.
No mean, but a Median (Score:2)
(with the caveat that it can't be perfectly normal, since the normal function is unbounded, but IQ is never negative.)
Intelligence itself is not metric-- you might be able to say "person A is smarter than person B" (with sufficiently good definition of "smarter"), but it's not clear what you mean if you say "1.3 times smarter". Intelligence is ordinal, but the metric is arbitrary.
Hence, "mean" really doesn't mean anything. "Median," however, works as long as the function
Re:Median Pedantic^2 (Score:2)
Well, if you are going to be pedantic then do it properly.
Intelligent as measured by IQ is based on percentiles that are then forced into a normal curve for no particular reason. So in that sense Average == Median.
But given that there is no upper bound on intelligence, but there is a lower bound, then there is possibly a slight right skew. So over 50 % are likely to be below average. If it turned out that 50.1% were below average, then certainly 50% were below average. Think, if about 99% of people are
Re: (Score:2)
I should start offering that service and do it with a few lines of perl. Why even go to law school?
Re: (Score:1)
Is Waymouth a politician by chance?
Just from the review... (Score:2)
...it's logic conclusion is that the Judge didn't seem to have read Mr Waymouth statement at all:
>> Mr Waymouth alleged: (after paying 200 pound+VAT) "what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me."
>> Judge Master David Cook said ... Mr Waymouth had "never fully articulated" WHY he was unhappy with Summerfield Browne's work.
(caps mine).
Well... Mr Waymouth was WAY CLEAR on WHY he was unhappy with...
Re: (Score:2)
...it's logic conclusion is that the Judge didn't seem to have read Mr Waymouth statement at all
Since he didn't respond to the suit in any way, that's not really surprising.
Re: Just from the review... (Score:2)
They didn't see it coming... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like something that happened to a famous actress once.
Re: (Score:2)
I went there for legal services and got molested instead. 1/5 because they don't offer zero!
Re: (Score:3)
I guess they are a overly litigious company
I mean ... isn't that a positive given what they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their homepage? It's... "retro" would be putting it kindly.
https://www.summerfieldbrowne.... [summerfieldbrowne.com]
Clearly not the most tech savvy bunch. It violates GDPR as well, uses non-essential cookies without asking for permission.
You Have To Attend -- Or You Lose! (Score:3)
Where do you think the USA received that little gem of legal procedure?
It sucks to be sued BUT it is a losing tactic to ignore a legal complaint.
Mr. Waymouth hosed himself and and lost the case BECAUSE he didn't even show up at the trial.
Dumb Move!
Mr. Waymouth desires no sympathy because of his own stupidity.
IMHO
What are Reviews for Anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
judge Master David Cook said it was "beyond any dispute" the words in the review "had a clear tendency to put people off dealing with the claimant firm.
Isn't that the point of reviews? : Either to say a company is good, encouraging people to use it, or to say it is bad and thus discouraging them. If I have a bad experience with a company I certainly do want to discourage others from using it, so they do not waste their money
Will this have a Streisland effect I wonder?
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but I'm pretty sure that claim is about demonstrating damages.
In civil matters, the only remedy is fiduciary. People don't go to jail as far as I know for things like defamation or for not repaying a loan.
Thus it's not enough to just defame someone. In order to take it to court the plaintiff must show that there was quantifiable damage that occurred as result of the defamation.
Keep in mind that truth is a defence of a defamation claim. According to Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation
Therefore to successfully bring a defamati
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But if you put people off using a company on the basis of a dishonest allegation of fact, you risk being sued for libel, as happened here. He didn't just say "I thought their advice was rubbish", he called them "a scam", meaning dishonest and fraudulent. That's a very serious allegation, especially about a law firm
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's only part of the ruling.
In the UK if you say something that causes someone else a loss, and you can't back it up then it can be considered malicious and you can be liable. If this guy had gone to court and argued that it reflected his experience he might have been okay, although the fact that he apparently didn't use their complaint's process weakens his position a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
It's not just a good idea; it's the law (in some places).
Important to note (Score:4, Insightful)
UK has some of the absolute worst, ass-backward libel laws.
This is not a case of one man getting screwed over, this is a systemic failure in the UK government to protect their citizen's freedom of speech. Any criminal charlatan can simply file a lawsuit to silence their critics, because the way UK law is set up it forces the victim of such lawsuits to spend huge amounts of money to prove their innocence, rather than the plaintiff to prove that there was any wrongdoing.
This is one example I point to when some idiot says that the US isn't a free country anymore. We may have our flaws, but even seemingly liberal countries will have weird, insane laws like this on the books that no US citizen would ever have to deal with.
Re: (Score:3)
Any criminal charlatan can simply file a lawsuit to silence their critics
Not really. Without trying to defend the law, I would point out that it's been in place in various forms since 1275 and we seem to have struggled through somehow.
Maybe this is why the British are such masters of damning with faint praise.
Re: (Score:2)
UK has some of the absolute worst, ass-backward libel laws.
The same law here is on the books in nearly every country. Fundamentally the guy lost his case because ... he never bothered to defend it. I could sue you right now for a made up reason, if you don't even bother sending your defense on a post-it note to court, expect the judgement to come out against you.
Its London... nuff said (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their site is not GDPR compliant! (Score:2)
Wow, if you go to their website https://www.summerfieldbrowne.... [summerfieldbrowne.com] you'll notice there's a tracking-cookie galore (google analytics, various others that look like advertising etc) and NO consent form! That's a textbook GDPR violation, they don't seem like they have any idea what they are doing in general...
You called them a scam (Score:1)
UK/US Comparison (Score:2)
When someone posts a review like this in the UK, it appears to me that it's taken as a factual claim. Here, in the US, we take it as just another person's opinion, which goes along with the "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" theme.
I'm asking, not saying...If I were to call someone in the UK a jackass, shyster lawyer, why is that not just my opinion? How have I damaged that person other than to make it known that it's my opinion, and YMMV? Is there some kind of disclaimer a person can make, an